model_get_duts

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not disclose return format, ordering, error behavior, or any side effects. This is a meaningful gap for an unannotated tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning, and it is as concise as possible while conveying the operation and scope.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple retrieval tool with one parameter, the core operation is conveyed. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves return structure, path semantics, and failure behavior unspecified. It is minimally viable but not fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the undocumented model_path parameter. It adds some meaning by noting the DUTs are 'under a Model', tying model_path to a model context. Still, it does not specify path format, required syntax, or accepted values.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('DUT names'), and a scope ('under a Model'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like model_get_mvars or dut_get_setups, which target different objects.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The intended context is clear: retrieving all DUT names associated with a model. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.